MSNBC debate questions on Iraq, immigration, and national security based on false premises
While moderating the April 26 Democratic presidential debate on MSNBC, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams falsely suggested that the so-called Feingold-Reid Bill would mandate that all U.S. troops be removed from Iraq by "about a year from now." In fact, the bill introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and eight other senators would allow the continued deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq for three "limited purposes." In addition, questions posed later in the debate contained falsehoods about public opinion on immigration and national security.
Discussing Iraq policy, Williams asked Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT): "Senator Dodd, as I understand it, you've co-sponsored something called Feingold-Reid, which would, in effect, cut off the funding spigot by about a year from now and draw the troops out. Is that possible -- the notion of no more troops in Iraq?"
Contrary to Williams' suggestion, the bill states, "No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008," except for the following "limited purposes":
(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.
The bill further mandates that a phased redeployment from Iraq "begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act."
Later, co-moderator David Stanton, political anchor of WIS-TV in Columbia, South Carolina, read an emailer's question to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), which asked: "Senator Clinton, if you were currently the president, would you defy the majority of American citizens and offer a form of amnesty for illegal aliens?" In fact, recent polling suggests that a majority of Americans support a path-to-citizenship proposal that critics frequently label "amnesty." An April 10-12 CNN poll found that 77 percent were in favor of "creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay in this country and apply for U.S. citizenship if they had a job and paid back taxes." A March 2-4 USA Today/Gallup poll found that 59 percent of respondents would support allowing "illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens but only if they meet certain requirements over a period of time."
In addition, after quoting former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) recent claim that "America will be safer with a Republican president," Williams went on to ask Clinton, "How do you think, Senator, it happened that that notion of Republicans as protectors in a post-9-11 world has taken on so?" In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, several polls in the past year have found that Democrats had an advantage on the issues of national security and foreign policy.
From the April 26 South Carolina Democratic Party debate, broadcast by MSNBC:
WILLIAMS: Senator Dodd, as I understand it, you've co-sponsored something called Feingold-Reid, which would, in effect, cut off the funding spigot by about a year from now and draw the troops out. Is that possible -- the notion of no more troops in Iraq?
DODD: I believe it is, Brian. I don't think the stakes have ever been higher for us as a country. We're more vulnerable today. We're far less secure. We're more isolated in the world as a result of this policy.
This is a failed policy. Our troops have been heroic, and certainly we'd all make sure whatever they needed, they would get.
But we need to understand that we've got to move beyond this policy. We need bolder, experienced leadership that will take us in a direction than where we're clearly, clearly headed. I'm proud to support the Feingold-Reid legislation, which does exactly as you've described it. It would provide an end date -- begin immediately and end date at the end of next March.
It's very important that the Iraqi people -- we're sending $2 billion a week, $8 billion a month, over $400 billion over more than four years -- they now have to assume the responsibility of their own future. We've given them that opportunity. Three hundred thousand troops are in uniform in Iraq today. They need to take on the responsibility of deciding whether or not they want to come together as a people.
I then believe also that we need to engage in the robust diplomacy that we haven't been engaged in. This administration treats diplomacy as it were a gift to our opponents -- a sign of weakness, not a sign of strength.
[...]
STANTON: Senator Clinton, if you were currently the president, would you defy the majority of American citizens and offer a form of amnesty for illegal aliens?
CLINTON: Well, I'm in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, which includes tightening our border security, sanctioning employers who employ undocumented immigrants, helping our communities deal with the costs that come from illegal immigration, getting the 12 million or so immigrants out of the shadows. That's very important to me after 9-11. We've to know who's in this country. And then giving them a chance to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English, and stand in line to be eligible for a legal status in this country.
STANTON: Time's up. Thank you, ma'am.
[...]
WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, Rudolph Giuliani, a friend of yours from back home, said this past week, quote, "The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us." Another quote, "America will be safer with a Republican president." How do you think, Senator, it happened that that notion of Republicans as protectors in a post-9-11 world has taken on so?
While moderating the April 26 Democratic presidential debate on MSNBC, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams falsely suggested that the so-called Feingold-Reid Bill would mandate that all U.S. troops be removed from Iraq by "about a year from now."
So why didn't Dodd correct him?
WILLIAMS: Senator Dodd, as I understand it, you've co-sponsored something called Feingold-Reid, which would, in effect, cut off the funding spigot by about a year from now and draw the troops out. Is that possible -- the notion of no more troops in Iraq?
DODD: I believe it is, Brian. I don't think the stakes have ever been higher for us as a country. We're more vulnerable today. We're far less secure. We're more isolated in the world as a result of this policy.
Look if Williams is spouting off MIS-information, shouldn't the Democrat, in this case Dodd, set him straight?
What a joke! Brian Williams would have been feted here if only he had stuck to liberal talking points. The fact that he dared to ask a couple (and no more) of mainstream questions gets people all hot and bothered....LOL.
No, the fact that he asked a couple of questions based on INACCURATE assumptions got him on here. Did you even read the report at the top of this page?
BTW, MMFA is VERY thorough. ANY conservative misinformation is liable to be reported here, no matter the source. For example, Jack Cafferty is frequently a critic of the right-wingers, but there is a report on one of his comments on this same page.
Lastly, do you think you are the first troll to poke his head up on this site? You're wasting your time here.
I love how the right-wingers always are very very willing to time and time again hand-out their benefits of doubt to the misinformers whenever they think it's convenient.
In this case, they wouldn't think to offer the possiblity that perhaps Dodd actually recognized the error in Williams' lead-up to his question, but that Dodd chose to address the actual question itself ("Is that possible -- the notion of no more troops in Iraq?") instead.
Also implicit in their chastisements of Dodd is the idea that since Dodd didn't take the time to correct Williams, then that somehow lets Brian Williams off-the-hook or lessens the misinformation in some way--an absolutely ridiculous notion.
Please tell me how this article relates to Conservative misinformation?
all you have to do is read the article...
I did, twice, and other than a reference to Giuliani, and still do not see the relationship between the article and Conservative misinformation. In fact, anything Conservative is not even mentioned.
Read the "About Us" section (and re-read the item) and you shall be enlightened. The misinformation was in that Brian Williams and Stanton both used false premises. Williams, about the bill, and Stanton regarding public opinion on immigration.
Are you implying that the way Williams asked the question automatically labels it rightwing rhetoric? Please explain.
It's natuaral that you wouldn't recognize the conservative framing of the questions, after all, you're conservative, right? You more than likely accept the premise that Republicans are national security tough guys and that everyone believes it too.
It was conservative framing, but who cares?
In general the candidates did a good job reframing the questions. Like Edwards asking what do we need to do change the underlying dynamic of what's going on in the world? Or Hillary undermining market fundamentalism with her regulated capitalism theme. Dodd was on point in reframing gay marriage to a question of equality.
Despite the false premises, Dems need to answer the questions on their own terms.
Honestly, how devoid of any connection to reality are right-wingers who claim that questions based on falsehoods are worthwhile because they reflect "mainstream" thinking?
Everybody knows the earth is flat.
Everybody knows the earth is 6000 yrs old.
Everybody knows the sun revolves around the earth.
Mainstream doesn't make it true.
despite Biran's promotion of fright-wing talking points in his pre-statement (you do realize that was not a question don't you?) Dodd answered the ONLY question in that exchange, and it sounds like he personally feels the bill is just a first step to get us out of that dishonestly started quagmire.
I agree totally Jeter. The story here is just as much the Democrats' ignorance of the facts as NBC's bungling of them.
There's some merit to what you say. This group of candidates is not going to question the phony underpinnings of right wing, anti-Democratic criticism, and that's troubling. If they don't, then who will? Instead, they buy into these false premises. Very distressing.
then again if they started doing that there would be no time left for answering questions. so it is a balance, you either answer the pre-question BS or you answer the question asked. Some limited corrections can be done, but mostly with a clock ticking they probably wanted THEIR message out rather then take the time to de-programm the zombie-cons...
BTW, are there any Gravel fans on here (other than myself)?
Sen. Gravel out-Kuchiniched Rep. Kucinich.
That's a hard thing to do, too.
I AGREE, a moderator asking questions based on FALSE Rightwing premises is PERFECTLY OK in such a debate setting.
This was a perfect opportunity for the Democrat's "best and brightest" to challenge the premise, set the record straight, and explain why their ideas are better. For the most part, they did so ... but a few great opportunities were missed to put on a performance half as pointed as Bill Clinton handed Chris Wallace.
None of the candidates went "on the attack" against the basis of the questions, but that's understandable. They stayed mostly on topic, and their answers mostly dispelled the false premises of the questions, without directly saying so. Being combattive in such a setting is the best way to get slammed the following day for being "unPresidential". Bill got away with it, because he's not running any more campaigns; he couldn't care less what the RIM says about his responses.
The sad thing for the rightwing is, nobody (especially Hillary) gave them any ammo for weeks of spinning "bloopers" ... there just weren't any.
The question about "Republicans as defenders" being "taken on so" was the most egregious. Hillary should have said, "You mean 'taken on so', meaning that the Media repeats that falsehood so often it might seem TRUE? Actually, Brian, if you look at the polls, most Americans no longer believe that to be true, even with journalists such as yourself stating it as the factual premise of your question. They trust Democrats to handle Iraq, terrorism, and national defense much more than they trust the current Administration. The last election in 2006 was decisive on that count, Congress was removed from Republican control. The American people are smarter than you, Brian, are giving them credit for."
Would've loved to hear that harsh truth spoken to the "framer" of that question. Ah, well. Hillary did a great job, can't complain.
P.S. Gravel reminded me of Adm. Stockdale, Ross Perot's running mate. Feisty, colorful ... and addled. Kinda charming and funny, but nobody you'd want to pass the car keys to.
Yes, I thought Senator Gravel was exciting. His position on this immoral war is clear. Good for him.
Gravel's anger was intersting, Kucinich was on his game, I liked the pulling of the pocket constitution. But, for me, Edwards stole the show...and Biden comported himself very well, with the exception of his dig on Kucinich at the end, I thought he did well.
Gravel acted like most Americans who are opposed to the war criminals running America. He has no chance to win but I hope he is still allowed to speak his mind. We need more candidates like him.
I was proud of him as he called out the other candidates on their unwillingness to rule out a nuclear strike on Iran. I also stood up and cheered when he pointed out that the military industrial complex not only controls our government but our culture.
This, 'people want to kill us' jive is part and parcel of the rhetoric of perpetual war spread by the military industrial complex.
We need to support policies, and candidates, that promote peace: Dialog, diplomacy and communication, the weapons of the truly brave. Projection of force is cowardly foreign policy, especially for a country with the largest military in history. Violence is the tool of the ignorant and weak. We are not a weak nation but we suffer from ignorance.
I've gotta agree with the above statements. You can't fault Williams if the candidates are too scared to speak in anything other than rehearsed, pre-written statements. Let's hope they learn from this and start standing up for themselves (and us).
Not gonna happen. The fear of losing outweighs the moxie to win, in all political candidates. At least until the last few primaries, when there's a clear-cut poll leader. For one of them to stick his neck out to actually say something of any substance or to vary from the script is a scenario so unlikely as to be no more than a movie plot. Kucinich showed about as much daring as you'll ever see in these ersatz beauty pageants.
These "debates" should be held by the Westminster Kennel Club.
the problem with "amnesty" is that it is not the "be all and end all" of it. if you offer citizenship, then those people's families become eligible to come here under present law. we are presently looking at a population of over 400 million by 2050, and that's without any "amnesty". the infrastruture costs will be huge for that. traffic in los angeles is now "rush hour" levels for most of the day and well into the evening. water supplies in the southwest and florida have reached their limits in most places. a week or so ago there was a report that claimed new york city would "lose population" without immigration. that ignores the fact that spiraling housing prices caused by over crowding has forced out many long time city residents. just looking at this issue without considering all the ramifications is a serious mistake.
And yet we have the oldest population in the world and americans are having less babies. How do you suppose we replenish our most important resouce; people? The fastest population growth in the west and Florida are senior citizens. Unfortunately as crude as it may sound the retired population contributes more to the medical industry then the local commerce. The fastest growing industry is the medical industry. Out with the old in with the new.
The last thing we'll ever run out of is people.
Try to get away from them sometime...
michael you're completely wrong. by far the country with the oldest population percentage wise is japan, followed by britain, france and germany among others. japan doesn't seem to be doing too badly economically. many polls also show that most americans expect and actually want to work past retirement age, at least part time. i have no intention of ever completely stopping. my dad retired at 62, was well able to afford it, and died at 64. but he sat around and got depressed. when we boomers were little, the people retiring then had in many cases worked hard physical jobs since they were 15 or so. a lot of americans now don't enter the work force full time until their 20's. as for your statement that the elderly only contribute to the medical industry, the fact is that they pay sales taxes, property taxes, and frequently income taxes. the biggest expense to local government is schools, and the elderly generally do not have children in school. immigrants, however, contribute more than their share per family to the school age population.
Discontinue MSNBC Debate
For the same reasons the Democrats would not have the debates with Fox, they should discontinue the debate with MSNBC. I pride myself on being very real and observant of the political climate facing our country. The one thing that is not contributing to any sense of positive real outcome is bias reporting of the facts.
MSNBC, CNN, CSPAN lead with political assumptions that are not facts. In most cases, there are talking points. When MSNBC begins to reflect more diverse opinions and true facts relating to what is really going on in Iraq, I might give them a little more credit for being a effective news organization. What I claim will soon be the highlight of this year because the conservative media movement is so assuming. They assume too much.
Joseph
Right on. Last night I turned on CSPAM, while flipping for MSNBC, and lo and behold, repugnant congresspeople were talking about how the troops needed funding soon, and the democrats should get it over with. I only saw the end of the debate, though.
The item identifies david stanton as a "political anchor" for WIS-TV in Columbia SC... what's a "political anchor" I wonder... and what's up with the nonsense of claiming to read a supposed E-mail question: The mere fact that stanton chose that supposed E-mail, makes it his question, and so why not just ask it that way... if he'd claim it was nothing that really interested him, then why would he have chosen it?
"Senator Clinton, if you were currently the president, would you defy the majority of American citizens..."
Defy the majority of American Citizens?
You mean like George W. Bush does?
And more stupid stuff from brian williams (a man so obviously chosen to be on TV, because of his resemblance to a department store window mannequin):
He not only quotes the rock-solid authority rudy guillianni (is that a joke, for the moderator to think rudy's words quote-worthy?), but then williams gives us...
williams: "How do you think, Senator, it happened that that notion of Republicans as protectors in a post-9-11 world has taken on so?"
What?
Which Republicans can this dimwit be referring to?
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Condi Rice etc?
...they of such low approval ratings with the American People right now (Cheney at about 9%!), that warts and measles and cavities are more popular, than those supposed 'public servants'...
Is that who williams means when he refers to the "notion of Republicans as protectors"?
Or maybe he means Congressional Republicans... you know, the ones completely turned out (shut-out!) in the U.S. History-making elections of November 7, 2006?
When williams says that somebody sees "Republicans as protectors", he must mean Republicans somewhere... and I think I just mentioned the principal Republicans in D.C.
And as for just who the heck it is that sees these "Republicans as protectors", I can only guess rudy...
...I mean, he's the one that williams strangely chose to quote.
You make a great point, the fact that Williams promotes the idea that Republicans are the protectors of America is a complete joke. 9/11 happened on their watch, they have gotten us into an immoral and dangerous war. They do not care about the security of America , they only care about continuing world domination to line their pockets. The more I thought about Williams tone last night, it was quite revealing.I will tell you one thing, next week when MSNBC has the Republican debate at the Reagan Library you can bet it will be a love fest between Rudy and Romney and McCain and the moderator Chris Matthews. Talk about a joke .
There's a lot to that ridiculous 'question' of williams, it's worthy of a closer look.
And so williams actually quotes a Republican candidate (rudy at that!), by way of two statements: "The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us" and "America will be safer with a Republican president"...
...and then reaches the extraordinary conclusion (from rudy's personal opinions!) to say:
williams: "How do you think it happened that that notion of Republicans as protectors in a post-9-11 world has taken on so?"
...which to me is like adding 1 plus 1, and getting 76 million...
76 million voters on November 7, 2006, went to the polls, and do you know what they did?
Do you know how they expressed their opinion of their supposed "protectors" Republicans?
By firing 6 incumbent U.S. Senators, and 22 incumbent House members, EVERY ONE OF THEM A REPUBLICAN!
That's right, not one Congressional Democrat failed to get re-elected, not one! It was the first time in U.S. History that has happened!
Another first in U.S. History? Yes.
Not one Republican nation-wide, in what included 468 separate elections (468!)... not one Republican captured even a single open seat that day! Another first in U.S. History!
Every open seat nation-wide went to Democrats.
Now OK, so this guy williams is maybe a bit misinformed when he refers to the "notion of Republicans as protectors"... or maybe he just needed to be asked a follow-up question to his statement, like:
"Just who is it you're referring to williams, when you cite this 'notion' of Republicans as 'protectors'?"
...and no matter what this guy says, about whatever supposed poll or whatever he pulls out of his files, you would just take it as an invition to repeat what I had written above... about the 76 million voters, and what they did on November 7, 2006.
And that taking care of the nonsense of who it is that might supposedly think Republicans were their "protectors" (because it wasn't those 76 million voters, that's for sure), you might then ask williams:
"And would you please name for me these Republicans, williams... name them specifically, the ones who are our supposed 'protectors'?"
And you know what?
Strangely, you'd get rudy's name... it must be him... who else could it be?
Now isn't that a weird thing: There's only one person out there that thinks that Republicans are our "protectors", and there's only one person who would claim to be that, claim to be our "protector"...
...and they're both rudy... he's the only one who thinks that stupid thought, that Republicans are our "protectors"...
He's the only one, who thinks that of himself.
Question is, do you spend your time rebutting the premise of the question itself or spend that very limited time making the point you were prepared to make.
"When did you stop beating your wife?" is an old prosecutors trick. It can be dealt with and very effectively - but not when you're under that kind of time restraint.
Remember that the purpose of the debate is not to argue with the questioner, but to establish a difference between yourself and your putative opponants. What would have thrilled us (A classic and well deserved smackdown of the purveyor of the wingnut talking point) would have opened up the responder to the (true but unfair) charge that they ducked the central question to quibble with the questioner.
Good for MMA for pointing out these talking point lies - sure hope major media outlets pick up on it.
Yeah, I know what I'm saying and exactly what the chances of that are. Still if Moyers' show isn't entirely in the can, there's that possibility.
Great point, you have a firm grasp on what the purpose of a real debate is suppose to be.
This isn't Jerry Springer folks.... as much as I would love to see someone take a metal folding chair to the back of Brian William's mellon for asking stupid question, we all know that the smear machine is waiting in the wings for the slightest slip up or unsightly behavior. Can you imagine the what would take place if HC corrected the moderator or came across as being angry because of the way a question was asked?
If we don't like the questions that are being asked during the debates, we need to speak up and hold the MSM to account.
"Can you imagine the what would take place if HC corrected the moderator"
Cheers from around the nation from the people smart enough to be paying attention? There are many Democrats and Independents who have been waiting for a DP candidate to show some backbone. Might as well start growing one before the next debate held by a poorly informed or deliberately misleading "moderator."
Corporate Media would lead every segment of every 'cast, including American Idol and Survivor 99 - Pluto, with comments about how shrill and abrasive and angry and unladylike Hillary's response had been, and edited clips would permeate that Media to an extent that would shame the effort to publish the Swith boat Liars. Oh, and the seven of us who don't partake of the Corporate Media, would indeed have cheered, but who would have heard us?
Actually, "Swift Boat Liars"
Williams went on to ask Clinton, "How do you think, Senator, it happened that that notion of Republicans as protectors in a post-9-11 world has taken on so?"
Uh... because the press keeps repeating the Republicants talking points, even when they are not factual?
Brian Williams is doing the Democrats a favor...
No, Feingold-Reid doesn't "cut off the funding spigot and draw the troops out." It contains numerous loopholes, such as a loophole for "troops engaged in training the Iraqi military" that would enable tens of thousands of troops to remain in Iraq after that "withdrawal" date.
If the public knew more about these loopholes, they would be more upset with the Democrats, not less. It's a good thing for the Democrats that the media, mostly out of laziness and incompetence, are describing their "withdrawal" legislation as being stronger than it actually is.
And here's a relevant poll:
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 21-25, 2007. N=1,503 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. RV = registered voters
"Do you think Democratic leaders in Congress are going too far or not far enough in challenging George W. Bush's policies in Iraq, or are they handling this about right?"
Going Too Far 23%
Not Far Enough 40%
About Right 30%
Unsure 7%
Now imagine how many would be in the "not far enough" camp if the public was actually getting accurate information about what the Democrats are doing!
Numerous loopholes?
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds- No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008. (d) Exception for Limited Purposes- The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows: (1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations. (2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel. (3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.
Sounds like this is a reasonable and limited set of exceptions and far from numerous.
Who decides whether the operations in question are "targeted operations, limited in duration and scope"?
Why, none other than the "Decider" himself, George W. Bush.
Please check the Constitution (I hear Dennis Kucinich has a pocket edition you can borrow). The Congress makes the laws, and the Executive branch executes the laws. It would be Bush (or his defense secretary) who would interpret these "restrictions", and in Bush's mind, every last soldier now in Iraq is there on a "targeted operation" against Al Qaeda.
You see, Bush thinks it's "targeted" because they haven't invaded Syria or Iran (yet).
You make a good point and you may be correct.
I thought Congress controlled the purse srings? The bill specifically prohibits funds to be appropriated for the continued deployment in Iraq. Any funds for continued deployment must be limited in extent and scope. Sounds like Congress, which is accountable to we the people, is demanding justification and accountability from the executive branch.
Maybe I'm wrong, I often am incorrect. I rely on my own research and good counsel from informed people accompanied by a well calibrated b.s. detector.
But just because the Decider thinks he is queen biatch of the universe doesn't make it so. Even he must conduct himself within the rule of law.
Suppose, through some miracle, Reid-Feingold becomes law. In March 2008, the restrictions kick in, and Bush can only keep troops in Iraq under one of the three exeptions in the bill.
How many would that be? Suppose Bush says the number is 150,000. That is, Bush claims we need 150,000 troops in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda (in operations "limited in duration and scope", of course), to train the Iraqi military, and to protect US facilities (e.g. US bases).
If Congress disagrees, what recourse do they have? Well, they could sue the President, but no Federal Court is going to insert itself into an issue like this. And even if they did, Bush would be long gone before the courts ever ruled. Just look at how long it took to get the Hamdi ruling on indefinite detention.
You can't give a guy like Bush $100 billion to fight a war, append some "restrictions" about how the money is used, write the restrictions in a way that leaves them open to interpretation, and then expect that those restrictions will have any practical force of law.
The only way to restrain someone like Bush is not to give him the money in the first place.
"The only way to restrain someone like Bush is not to give him the money in the first place."
I'm all for that.
Since he's gonna veto any such bill that includes restrictions or timetables he is, in effect, denying himself the funds. In a way, I like the tac the Dems are taking, they're using georgie's stick-to-itiveness against him. I would much rather see them take away his funding. Period. But the Democrats have to round-up some dissenting Republicans (I think that is possible at this point) to over ride a presidential veto and unconditional defunding would likely scare them off.
I probably underestimate Republican party loyalty. I just have to hold out hope for the possibility that the right thing can still be done.
First, I do not pay attention to most polls that aren’t scientific, there is too much room for error and never enough of a sampling used. If you are basing your comments on poll results, then your reasoning is flawed. I do not believe that a majority of voting Americans are against the war. Democrats won the majority because they always made sure that when they spoke, they put the words corruption and Republican in the same sentence. Those who typically vote Republican take morality seriously, unlike those who typically vote Democrat. It was a political tactic that worked. It also left a big responsibility on the Dems shoulders. They now have to work extra hard to guarantee a win for them in 2008.
I also think they missed an opportunity last night. They should have pointed out any misinformation if they truly believed that it existed. It sounded more to me that instead of debating each others opinions on issues, they debated the current administration. Another mistake.
That post was actually supposed to be in response to an earlier post by Tex.
If you are basing your comments on poll results, then your reasoning is flawed. I do not believe that a majority of voting Americans are against the war.
Well, at least we know you didn't base your belief on polls, or anything silly like that.
Those who typically vote Republican take morality seriously, unlike those who typically vote Democrat.
More "non-poll-based" analysis? Let me guess your source: crystal ball, right? No? Uh, tarot cards? Magic 8-ball? Wild shot in the dark? HAH! I KNEW it!!!
Oh, it's you again. Give it up, you will not convert me. I have given up trying to convert you. You are a Liberal or Greenie or whatever you want to call yourself. You do not think the way Conservatives do, so why are you trying to refute my comments? If you choose to foolishly count on polls for your information, I feel sorry for you. I hope you have a statistics course as criteria for your college degree. Of course, that class may have been removed from the curriculum since it would actually educate you on how inaccurate non-scientific polls are, and we know how the Libs and the Lib-run college campuses are not interested in giving you an education that may invoke you to actually think for yourself and make your own deductions. You are puppets, and you play into their hands. Unless you plan on going into politics, they have no use for you unless you are a hopeless welfare case dependent on them for your entitlements. Don't worry, you will grow up and see someday. Socialism is ugly, and it doesn't last. Neither does a true democracy when the society is full of ignoramuses.
Way to be exactly what conservatives profess to hate about liberals. You are arrogant, condescending and display a moral superiority complex.
Look man, Progressive morality simply has its roots in a different worldview. We believe in the common good, that the least among us is the equal to the greatest among us and as such we all deserve to share in the rewards of creating the wealthiest nation in history. Call it what you want. We believe that those who have prospered the greatest from the commonwealth; roads, internet, police protection, military security etc, are entitled to reinvest a greater share.
Broadly and in general, liberals believe in participation, equality and rehabilitation. Conservatives believe in aggression, hierarchy and punishment. Nothing wrong with either of those worldviews it's just a matter of preference. I prefer liberalism.
DoughNut,
You'll never read this, but just writing it does my soul good:
You obviously haven't noticed, but I'm not trying to "convert" you. If you do happen to see the light, great. But I'm merely pointing out that you're attempting to refute someone's statistics-based argument, by letting everyone know what you "believe". You may not pick up on that tiny little glitch in your futile theory, but it's highly likely most other readers will. And despite what you believe, I absolutely treasure arguments like yours, as they pre-emptively imply that the conservative point of view has no basis in fact, making it easier on those of us who actually use reality to back up our perspectives.
And what the hell does this mean: "You do not think the way Conservatives do, so why are you trying to refute my comments?" That's enough to make me feel embarrassed for Tommy, Bruce, Leather, and all the other sane conservative commenters who debate every day with people who don't think the way they do. I, for one, respect their points of view precisely because they look at the topics from a logical but different perspective. You wouldn't understand what that means. Don't even know why I wrote it.
Uh, just so you understand, I've been working with statistics for about 20 years now. I think I have a pretty good handle on them, but maybe that's just my experience talking. And I believe you don't have any idea of what makes a poll scientific. You have to agree with that because - by your standards as illustrated above - believing it makes it true.
I honestly don't know where socialism worked into this. Could it be you're showing a little bit of elite prejudice because you think I'm your idea of a stereotypical liberal? Enlighten me, please.
Finally, here's something that may surprise you: I actually think you're right about one thing. The ignoramuses are the weak link in our society. It's especially apparent after the past 6 years. But though you recognize the problem, I believe you won't do anything about it. You hold your dear conservative ideology too precious, and won't let go long enough to learn anything from those here who demonstrate daily what it means to be conscientious, logical, and intellectual. And I'm right, because I believe it.
If societies dont last when filled with ignoramuses. Do the patriotic thing, a great service to our nation, emigrate and until you do for goodness sake DO. NOT. BREED.
So then you dont believe in them newfangled polls, which are pretty much the ONLY mechanism to get any real EVIDENCE about what the American public THINKS about an issue and instead just DECIDED that the people dont oppose the war. And since you eschew the only evidence that exists, which just coincidentally shows you to be wrong, you would base this on WHAT? Do you have the amazing power to read the minds of the majority of Americans? Did you throw the I Ching? Perhaps you used a Ouiji board or a crystal ball. Actually we know it came from your rectal database. How convienient of you to just not believe polls since they show you to be wrong. How like a rightwinger to deny FACTS. Yeah, who needs facts, especially ones that dont conform to your delusional fantasies, I mean you have an ideology.
Dodd flunks.
The way to answer the Q about the feingold-reid bill is to squint, wrinkle your nose and say:I don't think I'm familiar with that bill. Oh, wait - are you talking about the Iraq bill we just passed yesterday? Oh, I know what you are talking about. I was confused. That bill leaves troops fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq for as long as it takes to get the job done. Tactics:- Immediately establish that there's a discrepancy instead of going with the flow and confirming the right-wing propoganda. Briefly - not a lot of words. - Don't attack them for their ignorance, instead apologize for 'your confusion' as you correct the conversation onto a different track. - You are obviously talking to a right-winger or Limbaugh listener, so speak their language and tell them what they want to hear, within the truth. - Do NOT pull a Kerry and go through and describe the three limited purposes. That's like 80 words to say that, including words like 'appropriated', 'organizations, and 'infrastructure'. You will lose 90% of the attention span you want, and you will piss off the people who like hearing W say Nukular - you're being a 'liberal elite'. Instead take ONE of the three, translate it into English. That's 20 simple words, and the longest is 'fighting'. Any successful prez candidate must have tactics like this well-honed, and must have memorized comebacks to the most common conservative attacks. Must be memorized. And the candidate must be able to think on their feet and adjust these comebacks to fit a situation. Instead of that 52 word response, Dodd used 235 words to say the following. My translation in brackets.I believe it is, Brian. [Yes, Ried-Feingold will abandon the war on terror!] I don't think the stakes have ever been higher for us as a country. [The stakes are high and we're cuttin and runnin!] We're more vulnerable today. [no meaning - 'vulnerable' is a big word.] We're far less secure. [Osama's attacking and we should be running away.] We're more isolated in the world as a result of this policy. [who cares about what France thinks of us? I'm worried that Al Qaeda will come to the US and crash into the Sears tower.][He now goes on arguing in favor of cutting off the war. When he could have avoided all the words by actually answering the question - No, don't worry, we'll still have troops in Iraq.]...We need bolder, experienced leadership that will take us in a direction than where we're clearly, clearly headed. [We need a Dem president who will cower from the War on Terror cuz that's where we're headed.] I'm proud to support the Feingold-Reid legislation, which does exactly as you've described it. [I'm proud that we're cuttin and runnin.] ...It's very important that the Iraqi people -- we're sending $2 billion a week, $8 billion a month, over $400 billion over more than four years -- they now have to assume the responsibility of their own future. [Lemme translate that into common English: We're spending $2 billon every week on this war. It's time the Iraqis stood up for themselves. 18 words instead of 39, one number instead of four.] ...
Your response:
[this] bill leaves troops fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq for as long as it takes to get the job done
Would be just the ticket to win over all those people who think we need to keep troops in Iraq until the "job" is "done."
And, according to the poll below, that means your response wins you the support of about 38% of the American people. Any guess as to what that percentage would be by November of 2008? Or how many of those folks are Democratic primary voters?
I appreciate all the thought you've put into how to use the language to get a point across, but good language shouldn't be placed in the service of a bad idea. And "stay until the job is done" is a really bad idea.
L.A. Times/Bloomberg News Service
Dec. 12, 2006
Q60. As you may know, some members of Congress are calling for a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq, while others are saying that our troops should remain in Iraq until the country is secure, and others are proposing that more troops should be sent to Iraq. Do you think the United States should withdraw troops from Iraq on a fixed timetable, or should keep the current level of troops in Iraq as long as it takes to secure the country, or should send more troops to Iraq?
Withdraw/fixed timetable 52%
Keep current level 26%
Send more troops 12%
Don’t know 10%